why do democrats vote for Hillary?

[panache45]

@El_Kabong

Well, those who are registered Democrats in the states holding primary elections will have the chance to do just that.

If Mrs. Clinton happens to collect enough delegates to clinch the nomination, then I’ll hold my nose and vote for her over any of the Republicans currently in the running, and I imagine I am not alone in this regard.

No, you’re not alone. If it comes down to either Clinton or ***any ***of the Republicans, I’ll vote for her, and try to control my gag reflex.

[panache45]

Another thing: The main difference I see between Hillary and Obama is his religiosity, which scares me. I’ll support Hillary as the more secular of the two. And I will never vote for Edwards.

[Revtim]

@panache45

Another thing: The main difference I see between Hillary and Obama is his religiosity, which scares me. I’ll support Hillary as the more secular of the two. And I will never vote for Edwards.

That’s interesting, my impression was that Obama might be more secular, because he actually mentioned people “of no faith” (or something worded similarly) positively in one of his speeches.

This impression, I admit, is based solely on that one speech. I never heard anybody say anything positive about “faithless” people before in a mainstream presidential candidate’s speech, and it struck me.

[Evil_Captor]

I’d have no trouble voting for Hillary. She only differs from the candidate whose position is closest to mine, Obama, by 10 percent or so. I don’t care about whatever perception of her character gets through all the spinmeisters and media filters out there. I go strictly on position and history. Clinton is my third choice primarily because she’s too conservative to suit me. I find it ironic that so many conservatives hate her. Obama and Edwards should both be more alarming, if policy was what formed the basis of their opinions.

[Shayna]

@Revtim

That’s interesting, my impression was that Obama might be more secular, because he actually mentioned people “of no faith” (or something worded similarly) positively in one of his speeches.

This impression, I admit, is based solely on that one speech. I never heard anybody say anything positive about “faithless” people before in a mainstream presidential candidate’s speech, and it struck me.

I don’t know that I would call him personally secular (he is a deeply religious man), but you may be pleased with what he has to say about religion and politics nonetheless. It might not be the same speech, but here are some excerpts from one. (Full transcript here)

Originally posted by Barack Obama

<snip>

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, [Alan Keyes] was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.

Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.

And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?

Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.

<snip>

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It’s going to take more work, a lot more work than we’ve done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

<snip>

While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do – some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn’t the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn’t want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

<snip>

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. . .

<snip>

So let me end with just one other interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

“Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.”

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be “totalizing.” His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of the Republican agenda.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight “right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.” The doctor went on to write:

“I sense that you have a strong sense of justice…and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason…Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded…You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others…I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.”

Fair-minded words.

So I looked at my website and found the offending words. In fairness to them, my staff had written them using standard Democratic boilerplate language to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in fair-minded words. Those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

So I wrote back to the doctor, and I thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own - a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It’s a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.

I don’t even have to hear him speak and his words bring me to tears. This man will make an amazing President.

I do not hold out equal hope for Hillary. I do not get the feeling from her that she’s at all interested in, let alone capable of, compromise. And I’m pretty sure she’s never even uttered the phrase “fair-minded words,” let alone allow the call to use them move her to do so.

[Terrifel]

@Phlosphr

Yes, in a way…I think she’s do fine in terms of being a CEO, but in terms of running the country - I’d rather inhale and choose a diferent tack than have a Clinton in there again. Not that those 8 years were bad…not at all, I’d just like something a little better.

This doesn’t strike me as a very committed assertion that Clinton would, in fact, be a bad president.

Sure, I’d like something a little better than the last Clinton presidency too. I imagine that Bill Clinton would also like something a little better than the last Clinton presidency. In fact, unless Hillary decides to sleep around on her watch, I don’t see any reason why a Hillary Clinton presidency wouldn’t be better than the last one. She already knows not to make the same mistakes that Bill did, and what will happen if she does.

That’s not to say that she might not make entirely new mistakes all on her own, but the same can be said of any of the other candidates.

[Terrifel]

I’d also like the “Hillary = good CEO/bad President” argument unpacked a little more if possible, as I’ve heard this tossed out a few times in various places. How does the belief that she would make a good CEO not support the belief that she would make a good president? Would the other Democratic candidates not make good CEOs? Haven’t we already had eight years of bad presidency by a bad CEO?

[Malienation]

Thing is, agreeing with a candidate on the issues is not enough. I went to some website where you answered some questions and assigned “priority points” to certain issues and it spit out the candidate closest to your views. My closest candidate was Dennis Kucinich, with whom I disagreed with strongly only on the immigration issue. That doesn’t mean I’d vote for him in the primary, though. He has no shot, so why bother? I’m interested in a winner, someone to fix what the 'Pubs have fucked up over the last 7 years. I’m not interested in making a statement.

Even if he had a shot, I still probably wouldn’t vote for him. He just doesn’t come across as a leader, and you need that in a President. What good is someone I strongly agree with on the issues if he can’t make it happen? I’d rather take a President I agree with on 50% of the issues if he can make them all happen. Think smart + honest + well meaning = great President? Remember Jimmy Carter? He was all that. And a shitty President.

Hillary’s my girl, and I’m a misogynist. What kills me, though, is the criticism I keep hearing about her. She’s “calculating.” Yeah, well, I like calculating. It’s a lot better than the “shoot from the hip” fumbling and stumbling we’ve had to endure from the current Prez. I don’t think she’s a shrew, and even if she is a little, why is that relevant? I’m sick of hearing about how Bush got elected because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with. I don’t want a frat boy. I want brains, goddamit! If Hillary does get the nomination, I’m seeing Richardson as Veep and Biden as Secretary of State.

Having said that, I have to say it’s a strong field, so I wouldn’t be too worried if she didn’t get the nomination. Many of the other front runners seem competent enough.

[Phlosphr]

@Malienation

<snip>

Hillary’s my girl, and I’m a misogynist. What kills me, though, is the criticism I keep hearing about her. She’s “calculating.” Yeah, well, I like calculating. It’s a lot better than the “shoot from the hip” fumbling and stumbling we’ve had to endure from the current Prez. I don’t think she’s a shrew, and even if she is a little, why is that relevant? I’m sick of hearing about how Bush got elected because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with. I don’t want a frat boy. I want brains, goddamit! If Hillary does get the nomination, I’m seeing Richardson as Veep and Biden as Secretary of State.

Having said that, I have to say it’s a strong field, so I wouldn’t be too worried if she didn’t get the nomination. Many of the other front runners seem competent enough.

I agree wth you completely, but I am voting and campaigning for Obama for much of your same reasoning. I don’t want a frat boy who I’d like to have a drink with, I want someone whose got the brains to be honest about how his changes are going to effect the everyday american, yeah they might sting a little when put into practice, but hell, be upfront and honest about it.

I saw Obama this morning in Manachester, I was BLOWN AWAY! I’ll write more when I’ve got a little more time.

[JustThinkin]

@Malienation

Hillary’s my girl, and I’m a misogynist. What kills me, though, is the criticism I keep hearing about her. She’s “calculating.” Yeah, well, I like calculating. It’s a lot better than the “shoot from the hip” fumbling and stumbling we’ve had to endure from the current Prez. I don’t think she’s a shrew, and even if she is a little, why is that relevant? I’m sick of hearing about how Bush got elected because he seems like a good guy to have a beer with. I don’t want a frat boy. I want brains, goddamit! If Hillary does get the nomination, I’m seeing Richardson as Veep and Biden as Secretary of State.

Having said that, I have to say it’s a strong field, so I wouldn’t be too worried if she didn’t get the nomination. Many of the other front runners seem competent enough.

I hate “me too” posts, but Malienation said what I’ve been thinking better than I could have (except I’m the opposite of misogynist).

I really wish Hillary were much more liberal than she is, but I don’t think someone like that can get anything done in DC. I like all three front Dems well enough, but I support Hillary 'cause I really, really want to vote for a woman for president.

[Phlosphr]

@JustThinkin'

I hate “me too” posts, but Malienation said what I’ve been thinking better than I could have (except I’m the opposite of misogynist).

I really wish Hillary were much more liberal than she is, but I don’t think someone like that can get anything done in DC. I like all three front Dems well enough, but I support Hillary 'cause I really, really want to vote for a woman for president.

I hope you have a lot more behind your vote than gender alone.

[El_Kabong]

@Phlosphr

Would the same apply if Mr. Obama cinched the nom?

Actually, Obama’s my first choice.

As for ‘holding my nose’, maybe that’s a bit too strong. I don’t have any major problems with a Clinton presidency, other, perhaps, than a wish not to see dynasties perpetuated. I think she’s likely to be considerably more competent that the current occupant, and that notion probably surprises no one.

[Mehitabel]

I’ve seen nothing that’s really changed my mind about voting for my girl Hillary; her life story is actually something I can relate to, coming from Wellesley and being a bit of a straight-arrow except in her choice of spouse. I want competence and sobriety and somebody who has grand sweeping ideas about what the organization she heads–the massive federal government–can and should do better. I’m tired of lofty empty platitudes from Bush and I’m getting a bit of the same vibe from Obama, although I think both believe what they say.

Over brunch today, with a bunch of Reps and Dems (granted, we were in Manhattan, and a Rep here really ain’t the same as one in Alabama) somebody said something very interesting that I hadn’t thought of, since I was a little kid when it happened. He said that Obama reminded him a lot of Jimmy Carter in 1976, who also succeeded a reviled administration but “who was such a sunny smiling idealist and then turned into a depressive in office when he saw he couldn’t do as much as he wanted”. Hmmmm.

Edit: Of course, who knows who’ll still be on the race when NY state gets to vote on Feb. 5? “Super Tuesday” my ass.

Edit 2: If I had a nickel for every time I heard the word “change” from a politician this week, I could have treated all my friends to brunch at the Four Seasons. Sheesh.

[gonzomax]

My brother is a New Yorker and says she has done a good job there. She should continue doing it.
She was a Goldwater Repub in a past life. She is a conservative . Bill made NAFTA . She is Republican lite. She votes for big money and big business over and over. She makes calculations for her electability rather than voting her conscience. I want Edwards or Nader.

[Captain_Amazing]

@gonzomax

. She makes calculations for her electability rather than voting her conscience. I want Edwards or Nader.

If I have to choose between a candidate who worries about electability and a candidate who votes their conscience, I’m picking the one who worries about electability, because at least they’ll get elected. Better that than somebody who’d rather be right than president.

And remember, you got Nader back in 2000, and Edwards as veep in 2004. How’d voting for them work out? You happy with the results?

[Phlosphr]

Unfortunately her calculations for her electability are falling short for many voting independants and republicans…I was in NH this weekend and her campaign is losing steam…we’ll see if that statement holds up but from what I have seen she’s not going to win NH…No way.

[Acsenray]

@gonzomax

My brother is a New Yorker and says she has done a good job there. She should continue doing it.

This, of course, is completely nonsensical. She’s a U.S. senator. She has nothing to do with how New York is run.

[Captain_Amazing]

@acsenray

This, of course, is completely nonsensical. She’s a U.S. senator. She has nothing to do with how New York is run.

I think he means she’s done a good job as Senator from New York.

[Ca3799]

She has a pretty good change of being elected. If she would run with Obama, that would be great!